Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of November 14, 2022.

Layoffs often accompany corporate bankruptcy, and employers should be aware of the legal obligations that impact mass layoffs and plant closures. Most notably, the federal WARN Act requires employers to notify the workforce of a mass layoff, a temporary shutdown, or a closure of all or part of a business.

Employers that fail to provide adequate notice could be on the hook for damages of back pay and benefits-related compensation per employee for each day the company violated the WARN Act (up to 60 days).

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”) is a federal statute that provides a cause of action against a railroad employer that negligently injured a railroad employee. Filing a FELA lawsuit is the exclusive remedy for recovery from a railroad employer for an employee’s injury resulting from the railroad’s negligence. As a result, successfully defending against a FELA lawsuit can insulate railroad employers from liability, and employers should work with their defense counsel to identify all viable arguments to raise.

The U.S. is one of the easiest jurisdictions in the world in which to do business. Regulatory barriers are generally low, establishing a branch or business entity is quick and easy, labor and employment laws are much more employer-friendly than in most other developed economies, and the legal system is well-developed and transparent. However, there are certain barriers to entry and challenges to doing business that should be taken into account before investing or establishing operations in the U.S.

The European Court of Justice has today given its decision in the “Woolworths case” on the duty to consult collectively under the Collective Redundancies Directive, in particular defining the meaning of “establishment” for the purposes of determining when that duty is triggered.

ECJ, Sixth Chamber, Judgment of 28 January 2015.

The judgment resolves the prejudicial question submitted by a Mercantile Court concerning the maintenance of workers’ rights in the event of the transfer of companies or part of them, and branches of business.

Creditors have the right to challenge the remuneration and expenses of appointed administrators through the Court. There is a procedure set out in Rule 2.109(1B) Insolvency Rules including a time limit by which such a challenge should be made.  The Court has a discretion to extend the time limit but in what circumstances will the Court exercise its discretion?

The European Advocate General has today given his opinion in the “Woolworths case” (and two other cases) on the meaning of “establishment” for the purposes of determining when the duty to consult appropriate representatives is triggered under the European Collective Redundancies Directive (the Directive).

This case considered whether Bulmers Transport Limited (“Bulmers”) was under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner” pursuant to Regulation 8(7) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”).

Comment

The case provides some helpful clarity on the inter-relationship of Regulation 8(7) TUPE and s388 Insolvency Act 1986, when determining whether a company is under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner”.

It is a fact of life that whatever goes up will normally come back down (but not necessarily vice versa). Nowhere is this more keenly felt than in the world of British football, where those clubs that just about stay in the Premier League reap riches that would be the envy of Plutus, Ancient Greek god of wealth, and those that drop out face a desperate chase for money simply to stay afloat.